Say the defendant paid 5 or 6 figures for legal counsel, would it be prejudicial for the prosecutor to incorrectly state the defendant was represented by the public defender? Appointed Counsel?

Is there a difference between the Public Defender and appointed counsel? Other than the title and oath, I don't think so.

The prejudice resulting from the jury hearing that which is not relevant and contrary to the defendant's 6th amendment rights, is the jury panelists are paying for both sides and one might be a bit desensitized not to believe a panelist will harbor a natural bias against somebody that cannot afford counsel as opposed to a defendant that rolls in with a law firm everyone knows costs at least as much as a down payment on a home, if not a home.

I'm thinking years of outcomes reflect juries generally believe wealthy people are less likely to be guilty.

I suppose the flip side might be a jury may actually expect less vigorous defense by a public defender regardless of innocence or guilt, that could work either way.

Thanks for being open minded and asking.

For the purposes of this discussion of a hypothetical, the USA is sufficient and what was said was 'the defendant is represented by the public defender' during prosecution's opening and the public defender introduced themselves the same way during their opening.